114 g) there was no effective judicial protection for the deceased alleged victims, for those who sustained burns and injuries and for their next of kin, since the State failed to exhaust all the means at its disposal to conduct a serious investigation and punish those responsible for the human rights violations denounced; and h) the State is responsible for failing to investigate those responsible for keeping the detention facility in such deplorable condition and those responsible for the torture. In the instant case, the interpretation of Article 25 must take into account the purpose of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which protects the rights of those persons who, because of their age, do not yet have full legal standing. Pleadings of the State 237. With regard to Article 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, the State: a) accepted responsibility for the violation of Article 25(1) of the Convention owing to the ineffectiveness of the constitutional writ of habeas corpus that had ordered the juveniles transferred from the Center to a proper facility. It did not, however, accept responsibility for the violation of Article 7 erroneously alleged by the Commission; b) petitioned the Court to take into consideration that the failure to comply with the court order was because of a lack of means; at the time the ruling was delivered, the State did not have an adequate place to which the inmates from the Center could be transferred; c) stated that the acknowledgement of the violation of Article 25(1) of the Convention was with regard to the inmates named in Judgment 652 of July 31, 1998, which granted the writ of habeas corpus; that judgment also included the persons named in paragraph c) of the petitum in the brief answering the application, inasmuch as some of those persons may have been incarcerated in the Center in 1998, the year Judgment 652 was delivered; d) the Commission’s allegation concerning the efficacy of the remedies to ascertain the respective authorities’ responsibilities for the human rights violations established in its application is vague since, rather than detail specific cases, it confines itself to making general accusations; e) agents of the State, each within his particular area of competence, facilitated the investigations necessary to determine the cause of the fires; f) the Commission did not sufficiently explore the judicial inquiries that were conducted into the events at the Center; the State had provided it with expert evidence, the reports prepared by the Volunteer Fire Brigade of Paraguay, and the court records and prosecution’s files. A criminal court judge already settled an investigation, one year after the fact, which is a reasonable period of time. Under the criminal justice system in force at the time, the judge in the February 2000 case decided to close it on the grounds that the author or authors of the fire were not identified; and